Impact of radiotherapy protocol adherence in NSCLC patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation: RTQA results of the PET-Plan trial
Radiotherapy and Oncology, ISSN: 0167-8140, Vol: 163, Page: 32-38
2021
- 6Citations
- 22Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations6
- Citation Indexes6
- CrossRef4
- Captures22
- Readers22
- 22
Article Description
The success of intensification and personalisation of the curative treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is strongly associated with the precision in radiotherapy. Here, we evaluate the impact of radiotherapy protocol adherence in a prospective multicentre trial. In the open-label, randomised, controlled PET-Plan trial, patients with inoperable NSCLC were randomized at a 1:1 ratio regarding the target volume delineation informed by 1 F-FDG PET and CT plus elective nodal irradiation (arm A) or target volumes informed by PET alone (arm B) and received iso-toxically dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiation. The prospectively organised quality assurance program (RTQA) included individual case review by predefined criteria. For evaluation, protocol adherence was scored as per protocol (pP), with minor (miD), intermediate (inD) and major (maD) deviations. In order to exclude biases through patients who discontinued treatment, patients who received ≥60 Gy were additionally analysed. Between 05/2009–11/2016, 205 patients were randomized, 204 patients started treatment according to protocol of which 31 (15%) patients had maD. Patients with maD had an inferior overall survival (OS) (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.8–4.4, p < 0.0001) and a higher risk of loco-regional progression (HR 5.7, 95% CI 2.7–11.1, p < 0.0001). These results were significant also in the subgroup of patients receiving ≥ 60 Gy. Patients with maD concerning normal tissue delineation and/or dose constraints had a worse OS ( p = 0.006) although no higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicities. Non-adherence to the radiotherapy protocol was associated with an inferior OS and loco-regional control. These results underline the importance of RTQA.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167814021066603; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2021.07.017; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85112368343&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34311004; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167814021066603; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2021.07.017
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know